Building owner can't expedite demolition

WORCESTER 
The Central Building on Main Street has received a temporary reprieve from the wrecking ball.

The Historical Commission tonight unanimously rejected a petition filed by the building's owner for a waiver to the city's demolition-delay ordinance.

Commission members said the owner, 332 Main St. Associates, a group controlled by the Krock family, did not make an adequate case to support the need for a waiver based on the grounds that keeping the building up for another year would create an undue economic hardship.

As a result, the eight-story office building, which was built around 1925, will remain standing at 322-332 Main St. for one year from the date when the application for the demolition delay waiver was filed (November 2012) with the Historical Commission.

After that time, the owner will be able to raze the building.

The demolition-delay ordinance puts a one-year hold on historic properties to give owners time to find a buyer who would be able to preserve the building or come up with another reuse for it.

The ordinance allows owners to seek a waiver to the one-year delay based on the grounds of economic hardship or that the demolition would not be detrimental to the historical or architectural resources of the city.

Gary S. Brackett, a lawyer representing 332 Main St. Associates, said the owner is facing an economic hardship because the building is vacant and is not generating any rental income. In comparison, the building took in more than $431,000 in rental income in 2010 when it had tenants, he said.

Meanwhile, the owner still has to pay more than $150,000 annually to maintain and heat the building, as well as preserve its fire suppression system, in addition to more than $90,000 in property taxes.

The building, which has nearly 84,400 square feet of space, is assessed at $2.9 million; it had been assessed at $1.4 million two years ago.

At its January meeting, the Historical Commission asked the applicant to present additional financial information to support its claim for an economic hardship.

It also wanted to know the owner's future plans for the property, as well as what the projected demolition costs were and the cost to remove asbestos from the building.

Mr. Brackett said tonight that no final determination had been made regarding the future use of the property.

He said the applicant also made a concerted effort to sell or lease the building.

He pointed out that the building owner had filed a demolition-delay waiver request with the Historical Commission in 2011, but subsequently withdrew it and invested in upgrades to the building to enhance its response to a request-for-proposal for office space that had been issued by the state.

But the owner was not successful in getting that contract.

Regarding demolition costs, Mr. Brackett said the building owner had not made any arrangements for demolition or secured any bids. Also, no information was provided regarding efforts made to actively market the property.

Without any of that information, commission members said they could not support a request for a waiver.

“An adequate case hasn't been made for an economic hardship,” said Commissioner James Crowley. “Nothing has been presented to us to show there would be an undue economic hardship to wait one year.”

City planning officials and a representative of Preservation Worcester also weighed in against the waiver.

They argued that no substantive proof of economic hardship had been made and that razing the building would be detrimental to the historical and architectural resources of the city.